Designing an App for Immunosuppression Adherence and Communication: A Qualitative Approach

Abstract

French

Background:

Immunosuppression nonadherence may be the most important factor limiting long-term allograft survival.

Objective:

Following user-centered design, we explored the essential priorities and preferences of kidney transplant recipients and healthcare providers (HCP) to inform development of a smartphone app to improve immunosuppression adherence and communication.

Design:

A qualitative descriptive research design was used.

Setting:

The University of Alberta Hospital adult kidney transplant program in Edmonton, Canada.

Participants:

Participants were recruited by convenience sampling and included 32 kidney transplant recipients and 11 HCPs.

Methods:

Seven focus groups (5 with recipients and 2 with HCPs) were conducted to inform app development. Sessions were recorded, and transcripts were coded to elucidate themes.

Results:

App development to improve adherence was not a priority for HCP. Recipients prioritized choice: that all features be optional. Recipients preferred support while traveling; access to laboratory results; and use by younger or newly transplanted recipients. Both recipients and HCP preferred linkage to pharmacy; and self-management and accountability.

For the app to improve communication, HCPs believed the priorities to be addressed included: clarity on scope of app; legal, ethical, and professional obligations; and charting. Both recipients and HCP prioritized HCP workload, and broader medication and health concerns. Healthcare providers preferred tech support; both recipients and HCPs preferred app access for nontransplant HCP.

Limitations:

Limitations include underrepresentation of physicians, recipients with racial/ethnic diversity, and potential selection bias of transplant recipients who perceived themselves to be adhering to immunosuppression medications.

Conclusion:

Future research is needed for the app to become a comprehensive, secure platform for broader communication between recipients and HCP, pharmacies, and nontransplant clinicians while streamlining HCP workload.

Keywords

immunosuppression communication transplantation eHealth mobile health

What was known before

Poor immunosuppression adherence may be the most important factor limiting long-term graft survival.

The transplant community has identified that development of effective interventions to improve adherence is a priority.

Technology may help improve medication adherence for kidney transplant recipients

What this adds

While we explored development of a smartphone app to improve immunosuppression adherence, we found this was not a priority to HCP. HCP-recipient communication to improve overall experience within transplant care was prioritized over immunosuppression adherence.

Kidney transplant recipients prioritized choice, independence, and greater access to their health information over potential monitoring.

Healthcare providers and recipients together imagined use of a comprehensive platform for broader communication between themselves, pharmacies, and nontransplant clinicians while upholding security requirements and streaming HCP workload.

Introduction

Poor immunosuppression adherence may be the most important factor limiting long-term graft survival.^1-4 Immunosuppression nonadherence is common, with estimated prevalence up to 36%⁵ in kidney transplant recipients. Development of effective interventions to improve adherence has been identified as a priority by the transplant community.^6,7

Several trials demonstrated that technology may help improve medication adherence for kidney transplant recipients^7-11 McGillicuddy et al⁸ demonstrated that an app-based reminder system to self monitor blood pressure and provide blood pressure measurements resulted in better adherence and more medication adjustments by the healthcare providers (HCP). The TAKE-IT trial⁹ showed that individualized coaching, adherence monitoring and feedback using an electronic pillbox, and dose reminders using text messages, resulted in a 66% greater likelihood of adherence compared with monitoring alone. Nguyen et al¹⁰ also explored strategies and challenges to improve medication adherence, including opinions on usage of and electronic pill box along with a supplemental website and features such as reminders and longitudinal pill box data tracking. While electronic ingestible pills are now available, the long-term research into acceptability in the transplant settings are still needed.⁷

In today’s world of extensive smartphone use and a culture in which “there is an app for that,” the feasibility of integrating app technology to improve adherence in transplantation is growing.¹¹ While most reviews found that while the evidence for using mobile technology is moderate, they concur that there is great opportunity to promote therapeutic adherence using mobile health interventions.^12-19 Among transplant recipients, smartphone ownership and interest in using medication apps have doubled in the past 5 years.²⁰ While a variety of medication apps are available commercially, even the top performing apps curated by medappfinder.com require motivated individual users to actively sign up with the apps and then allow the apps to share information with their physicians.^7,20 None of the available apps were designed to be integrated as part of a transplant center’s electronic medical record (EMR), nor intended to be employed on a program-wide basis.^7,20-22 Therefore, we plan to build an integrated app within an existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant EMR, with the intention of programmatic implementation to improve medication adherence and communications between patients and HCP. We employed a user-centered design^23,24 to explore the following research question: What are kidney transplant recipients’ and HCP’s essential priorities and preferences to inform the development of a smartphone app to improve immunosuppression adherence and communication? This approach will improve app acceptability and usability as it is “designed” by the users.

Methods

Study Design

Following a qualitative descriptive research design,²⁵ we conducted 5 recipient focus groups and 2 HCP focus groups to collect qualitative data, and applied thematic analysis.^26,27

Participants

Participants were recruited by convenience sampling²⁸ from the University of Alberta Hospital adult kidney transplant program located in Edmonton, Canada.²⁹ Transplant recipients were informed about the study when they attended clinic appointments (between June to August 2018). Nonclinical research staff followed up with interested participants to provide additional information and obtain informed consent. The inclusion criteria for recipients included: age over 18 years; and being a kidney transplant recipient followed by the program. Recipients were excluded if they had significant cognitive impairment or language barrier. The inclusion criteria for HCP included both physicians and allied health transplant care team involved in patient care, and all were verbally invited to participate

Data Collection

Focus groups (1-1.5 h, 4-9 participants per group) were undertaken to elicit group discussions.²⁸ They were conducted by an experienced facilitator (L.E.L.) who had no prior relationship with participants and guided by a semistructured discussion tool (see Supplementary File 1). Of the 5 recipient focus groups, 4 were conducted in a conference room at the hospital, outside of the clinic setting; one was stratified for younger recipients (<40 years) and conducted via Skype. Healthcare providers focus groups were conducted in a conference room, outside regular work hours. All focus group discussions were audio-recorded.

Data Analysis

Field notes were used to record initial impressions and contextual details. Focus group transcripts were coded inductively and independently by the facilitator (L.E.L.) and a research associate not present during data collection, using NVivo 12. They created “memos” to note analytic reflections and met to discuss coding differences and reach consensus. To compare and contrast priorities and preferences, recipient and HCP data were first coded and analyzed separately, then combined, compared and contrasted between groups to elucidate thematic²⁶ commonalities and differences in their priorities and preferences in app design. K.S.M., L.E.L., and K.W. reviewed emerging findings, and through consensus agreed on the final thematic structure. App features were defined as “priorities” when participants discussed the feature as essential. App features were defined as “preferences” if they were discussed as optional. Through this analytic approach, inductive thematic saturation was achieved.³⁰ The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines were followed.³¹ (See Supplementary File 2).

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board and Alberta Health Services. All recipient and HCP participants provided written informed consent.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Thirty-two kidney transplant recipients and 11 HCP who worked in the transplant clinic participated (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Recipient and Clinician Participants.

Demographic iformation
Kidney transplant recipients—total	32
Current age—years
Mean age (SD)	45.9 (15)
Range (min-max)	22-79
Age at transplant—years
Mean age (SD)	39.1 (14.5)
Range (min-max)	18-71
Sex
Female	8
Male	24
Ethnicity
Caucasian	30
African	1
Asian	1
Marital Status
Married	21
Never married	11
Number of transplant
First transplant	28
Second transplant	4
Type of kidney donor
Living donor	19
Deceased donor	13
Years since transplant
Mean (SD)	6.3 (6.1)
Median	4
Range (min-max)	<1-20
Interquarile range	5.5
Cause of end-stage renal disease
Diabetes mellitus	4
Polycystic kidney disease	2
Glomerulonephritis	16
Congenital	3
Unknown	7
Co-morbitities and complications
New onset diabetes after transplant	7
Coronary artery disease	5
Stroke	0
Recurrence of native kidney disease	1
Post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder	1
T-cell-mediated rejection	2
Antibody mediated rejection	2
Healthcare providers—total	11
Age—years
Mean age (SD)	47.5 (5.3)
Range (min-max)	41-58
Sex
Female	11
Male	0
Ethnicity
Caucasian	9
Asian	2
Occupation
Transplant coordinator—registered nurse	8
Dietitian	2
Pharmacist	1
Years in practice (SD)	22.5 (5.6)
Years in transplant practice (SD)	8.6 (5.7)

Themes

Development of an app to improve immunosuppression adherence entailed one essential priority identified by recipients only: that all app features be optional. Five preferences to improve immunosuppression adherence were identified. Recipients’ preference was that the app could provide (1) support while traveling, (2) access to laboratory results, (3) benefit to younger or newly transplanted recipients; both recipients and HCP preference was for the app to provide, (4) linkage to pharmacy, and (5) self-management and accountability (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Priorities and preferences for app development to improve immunosuppression adherence.

Development of an app to improve communication entailed 5 essential priorities. HCP prioritized (1) clarity on scope of the app, (2) legal, ethical, and professional obligations, (3) charting; both recipients and HCP prioritized, (4) HCP workload, and (5) broader medication and health concerns. Two preferences to improve communication were identified. While HCP preferred (1) tech support, both recipients and HCP preferred and (2) app access for nontransplant HCP (see Figure 2). (See illustrative quotes in Table 2).

Figure 2.

Priorities and preferences for app development to improve communication.

Table 2.

Illustrative Quotes.

App development to improve immunosuppression adherence
Theme	Focus group participants
Priority:1. All app features be optionalRecipients only	Recipient 9: I just echo what was said [about not using the app to record taking medication]. You know even just having some control over your situation too. I mean it feels like you’re kind of in a Big Brother situation if they’re looking out, you know 5 minutes late on this one and stuff like that.Recipient 8: Yeah, that’s a good point.Recipient 9: You know the great part about a transplant is you’ve got freedom and control over your own situation. A lot more than you had before that’s for sure.All: Yeah, yeah.Recipient 9: So just losing some of that [through the app] is kind of contradictory.Recipient 7: That’s the whole part of the transplant right is freedom.
Preference:1. Support while travelingRecipients only	Recipient 7: I travel a lot so what I run into sometimes, something will happen—the flu or whatever. You go in and they look at you but they’re unaware of what it means to have a transplant . . . I got into situations where I need a pill but the real clinic is closed, I can’t call them and they’re not too sure whether the pill that they are recommending will be a good fit or a mismatch.Recipient 8: Yeah, to have that access just on your App 24 hours a day no matter what would definitely be [beneficial] . . .
Preference:2. Access to laboratory resultsRecipients only	Recipient 12: When the lab sends the blood work results, they [could] come through the App too.Recipient 14: ‘Cause I’ve asked the doctors say can I get these results? Can I have graphs, can I see what’s happening? I like looking at the numbers. [And they say], ‘oh we can’t send this through email. It’s private . . . ‘ I have to call in to find it, unless there’s something way out of whack, [then] I get called at 10 or 11 at night. Every time I do blood work I’m looking at the phone waiting for something to go off.
Preference:3. Benefit younger or newly transplantedRecipients only	Recipient 21: I’m sorry, I just kind of think it almost sounds like it’s trying to gamify, it’s like, ‘oh you took your meds, you get a trophy. Ooh.’Recipient 24: Exactly.Recipient 19: But for younger ones, absolutely.Recipient 25: Anybody under the age of 25, is going to love it.Recipient 29: Yeah. Especially when you are starting out. When you had your transplant, you start off with quite a few medications and you take them all day and it’s quite easy to forget what they are and what the doses are too. So it [the app] would be very helpful for the people who are just starting off with their new medications and how frequently they are changing.
Preference:4. Linkage to pharmacyRecipients & HCP	Recipient 20: Linking it [the app] to your pharmacist would be kind of a cool thing too . . . If you got all your medications listed on the App as well as the renewals. So the pharmacy can just go straight there or we can send it straight to the pharmacy from the App rather than having to go through the doctor.Recipient 18: Just having the transplant pharmacist as well as the outpatient pharmacy contact information, having that available.Recipient 19: Having them work as a team.HCP 10: I was wondering if the App has the capability if patients go to family physicians and something gets prescribed, they go to pharmacy, pick up their prescription, if they can with the cellphone take a picture of the new medication and then we would be able either to see the new medication or the name would pop up on the healthcare professional site.
Preference:5. Self-management and accountabilityRecipients and HCP	Recipient 24: I kind of wondered if by taking responsibility away from the individual, what else that individual is going to be expecting the staff to be doing for them. And then it gets to the point where those who are perhaps less motivated to take control of their own health, they just start offloading that and expecting the App to do everything for them and not really making conscious effort.HCP 4: [If] they [recipients] are too reliant on us entering things for them, that could cause confusion for the patient because they might expect us to change these meds, what they see on the app says one thing but the doctors changed it, that could just cause confusion.
App development to improve communication
Theme	Focus group participants
Priority:1. Clarity about scope of the appHCP only	HCP 1: A lot of the changes are not necessarily made by our program. So I really would not want to be responsible for updating a patient’s app separate from our chart on meds that aren’t even the ones that we are changing or prescribing.
	HCP 3: All of the medications are reviewed not just the transplant immunosuppression, transplant meds. I mean these patients are usually seen by multiple people. Another example would be the combined organ transplant so you got a liver-kidney, they are adjusting medications . . . Just going to your family doctor, because they could be co-managed by the program, the nephrologist suggests the blood pressure [meds] here, asks them to go see the family doctor in a couple weeks and follow up, they could be adjusting things, so we won’t necessarily even know that unless the patient has good communication and calls us back and said this thing was adjusted.
Priority:2. Legal, ethical, and professional obligationsHCP only	HCP 2: My biggest question is also the confidentiality and the privacy and the storage of the information. I know there are some apps out there, but I just cannot recommend them to a patient ‘cause I don’t know where the information is being stored. And for us, even communication through email, emailing us the medication list and if I reply and they are not in the secure network with the proper firewalls, we are breeching patient confidentiality. So I just want to see how this app—where the information is stored and how we go about doing that part.
Priority:3. ChartingHCP only	HCP 5: Like [no] double entry. I would want it [the app] to be linked to their online chart. Because you have more potential for error if you are having to enter it into OTTR [Organ Transplant Tracking Record] and enter it into an app.HCP 2: That would be time consuming. Some of these patients have many, many, many medications and that would take a long time, especially initiating things. Maintaining it might not be so much but still, that is an extra step. Especially if it is not part of the current workflow, [it] could cause some problems of inaccuracies, and then the patients are going to be confused on all levels.
Priority:4. HCP workloadRecipients and HCP	Recipient 17: The staff are so busy, they have so many duties already and the patient load is so heavy that my concern is with all this input [into the app] that maybe would be asked of them with all this changing medications . . . is that going to cut down our chances of ever being able to reach them by phone and having any feedback from them? I like to talk to them in person. I like to be able to phone and I hope for a phone call back. I’m in charge of my medications. As I said before, I’m not an App person.Recipient 18: So I guess the question is how much of this App would we want to be more of me, myself and I—personal for me to use . . . [and] how much of it do we want the staff to be worrying about having to communicate with? . . .Recipient 24: Really if they can’t support it, then it’s really not worth having the feature.HCP 3: It’s just the extra steps. If it’s going to be—we update it in our current system, plus then we update it in the app—all of that adds extra time to your day.HCP 3: I guess the hard part is, now this is another avenue I have to remember to check. Not only do I get phone messages and sometimes e-mails from patients, but now I’m going into a third portal to make sure that I’m not missing something . . .
Priority:5. App as communication tool—medication and health concernsRecipients & HCP	Recipient 29: I have to admit that my inspiration for being even more interested in this App is . . . I find trying to get a hold of the nurses at the Kidney Clinic incredibly aggravating and very difficult and I actually think that I would use the App primarily for . . . communication, to be honest, [more] than anything else.HCP 4: And it would have to be part of the medical record somehow too . . .HCP 3: We also have people who cross cover your portfolio so that communication on who’s doing what, I just think there could be recipe for a problem or inaccuracies with multiple steps.
Preference:1. Tech supportHCP only	HCP 4: Just limitations of technology too, if they [the recipients] have somewhere more remote and they are not always getting wifi access, can’t update it, or they’re getting frustrated with this and they are going to ask us questions about that.HCP 1: That’s true, some tech support. Cause I won’t be able to help with that.
Preference:2. App access for nontransplant HCPRecipients and HCP	Recipient 4: Going forward from today’s date, everything is technology driven. If a nurse needs to make a change, the doctor sees that change on the prescription, the pharmacist sees that change. You don’t get this little hiccups. The patient sees it, he logs in, you’re seeing it right away. Or a result from the blood work. Everything is all in one location, it’s a little bit easier for newcomer . . . ‘Hey we need to do this, we can order meds, we know what we’re taking, oh we’re going the wrong way’. Everybody knows about it right up front . . . The ultimate goal with this is everyone’s in the loop and there’s no gray area.HCP 2: I think its definitely helpful but at the same time, whoever is using it [the app] has to be diligent in updating it. So bringing the same list, this is my family doctor, this is what I’m taking and then once the doctor makes the change, they would update it. So wherever they bring this app and show it, that will be his current up to date med list.HCP 3: I know on the one app that I have . . . is that actually if there is changes, they can email your physician with it. So, if I had med changes or I can send my med list to them, I can send my blood pressure readings to them, and I just email and it automatically uploads all of that current information to the physician if they wanted it, or accepts it.

Note. Themesn green and blue correspond to Figures 1 and 2. HCP = healthcare providers.

App Development to Improve Immunosuppression Adherence: One Essential Priority

All app features be optional (recipients)

Development of an app to improve immunosuppression adherence was prioritized by recipients only. Healthcare providers, unexpectedly did not prioritize development of an app toward this goal, particularly in comparison to prioritization for communication (outlined below). Recipients framed this within individualized choice. Recipients consistently stated the importance of ensuring all app features were optional; that is, anyone using the app could choose whether to activate any feature (such as alarms). Most recipients were not interested in using the app as a device to track medication adherence; sharing that information with the transplant clinic team was perceived as unnecessary “monitoring.” These recipients suggested that receiving a kidney transplant gave them freedom (from dialysis) and control over their own health; being monitored through an app was perceived as contrary to that gain.

App Development to Improve Immunosuppression Adherence: 5 Preferences

Support while traveling (recipients)

When discussing development and design of the app to improve immunosuppression adherence, recipients preferred using the app for support while traveling. One unique aspect of this preference was for the app to help with medication timing when crossing time zones. Another preference was to be able to use it for healthcare advice while traveling if local HCP were unfamiliar with the kidney transplant context of care.

Access to laboratory results (recipients)

A design feature that recipients raised spontaneously (ie, unprompted through the question guide) was having access to laboratory results (specifically blood work) on the app. Many recipients stated they closely monitored laboratory results and sometimes struggled for access to this information. Having laboratory results available through the app was of strong interest, an opportunity for greater control of their own health data.

Benefit younger or newly transplanted (recipients)

Also unsolicited through the focus group questions, recipients shared their preference about the app’s intended users. Recipients commonly stated the app would be most useful for “younger” generations whom they assumed would be more likely to use an app. Recipients recalled their early days posttransplant as being physically challenging and tumultuous in terms of medication management. They suggested that an app would have been most helpful to them at that time and would likely be so for other recipients immediately posttransplant.

Linkage to pharmacy (recipients and HCP)

Both recipients and HCP preferred linkage to pharmacy be included in app development. They shared the desire to have the app link to the clinic’s pharmacy as well as other retail pharmacies for medication management. Both groups perceived tracking medication supply, ordering medications, managing prescription changes and medication safety (eg, alerts for allergies or drug contraindications) would be easier and more efficient if managed through the app. Healthcare providers also stated that the app could be used to house insurance coverage of medications. Recipients’ preferences were that all medications would be listed in the app (ie, not limited to immunosuppression medication). While recipients wanted greater access, there was inherent conflict here with HCP who highlighted concerns about workload, accuracy, safety, and professional responsibility if other medications were included in the app.

Self-management and accountability (recipients and HCP)

Recipients and HCP both preferred that app development would facilitate recipients’ self-management, specifically their accountability or responsibility for their own health. Recipients stated concerns about being monitored for medication adherence through the app and feared it would create overreliance on clinic staff. Similarly, HCP were hesitant about taking responsibility for entering medication information changes for recipients, stating concerns about the potential for confusion.

App Development to Improve Communication: 5 Essential Priorities

Clarity about scope of the app (HCP)

One of the strongest priorities for HCP was clarification about the scope of the app. They raised a multitude of questions about the “boundaries” of the app. They wondered whether the app would include transplant care information or broader healthcare information. They questioned if the app would be limited to immunosuppression medication or all medications. Healthcare providers prioritized articulation of “who” would be responsible for updating information in the app for ongoing accuracy.

Legal, ethical, and professional obligations (HCP)

Healthcare providers believed that for the app to improve communication, legal, ethical, and professional obligations needed to be addressed. Healthcare providers raised concerns about legal issues, and ethical principles such as confidentiality. Healthcare providers wanted assurance that the app would meet privacy regulatory requirements for recipient data. Interestingly, these concerns were rarely raised within the recipient focus groups. Healthcare providers highlighted the importance of explicitly stating the limits of legal and professional obligation in the app. Similar to their questions about scope of they app, they sought clarity about who would be responsible or liable for medication reconciliation, data accuracy, and so on.

Charting (HCP)

Healthcare providers prioritized charting for app development to potentially improve communication. They expressed concerns about how communications via an app would be documented in the medical record. It was important to HCP that communications via an app would not require duplicate documentation but rather that app-based communications would be integrated automatically into the EMR. They also stated the importance of including charting safety features in the app (eg, soft and hard dose limits, flags for potential drug interactions, allergies, or drug tolerance issues).

HCP workload (recipients and HCP)

A commonly expressed concern for both recipients and HCP was the potential for the app to add to the workload of the HCP. Recipients and HCP shared the belief that the clinic staff were already working at capacity. They stated fears that the app would inadvertently decrease the quality of care by decreasing the amount of time available for communication with recipients. Both groups were unequivocal in their opinions that to improve care, the app’s design must not increase HCP workload and be resourced appropriately.

Broader medication and health concerns (recipients and HCP)

A top priority for both groups was HCP-recipient communication through the app about broader issues related to medications and health concerns. Healthcare providers were cautious, concerned that recipients would expect the app to be a vehicle of communication outside of clinic (and their work) hours. Recipients stated that broader communication with clinic staff was a top priority for app design, for the very reasons HCP anticipated—increased access to HCP. Recipients hoped the app would improve communication in general, and specifically for after-hours access for urgent healthcare concerns. Recipients shared their dilemmas when they were uncertain about the appropriate course of action for their symptoms, and their only option was to seek care from providers who lacked the clinic staff’s expertise. Recipients perceived that communication with clinic staff at these times would facilitate good care decisions and be a cost savings to the healthcare system.

App Development to Improve Communication: Two Preferences

Tech support (HCP)

When discussing future development of the app to improve HCP-patient communication, HCP preferred that recipients would have access to “outside” tech support for the app. They believed that tech support should not be provided through the transplant clinic.

App access for nontransplant HCP (recipients and HCP)

Both recipients and HCP were interested but uncertain how other HCP outside of the transplant clinic would access the app. For example, recipients wished to share their medication lists through the app with other HCP within their broader circles of care. Although HCP similarly stated their interest in having HCP outside of the transplant clinic access the app, they also wanted clarification about roles and responsibilities for ensuring the accuracy of the information available in the app which would be shared outside of the transplant clinic, particularly updated medications.

Discussion

The overarching aim of this qualitative study was to explore the essential priorities and preferences of kidney transplant recipients and HCP to inform the development of a smartphone app to improve immunosuppression adherence and communication. Interestingly, we found that HCP did not prioritize app development to improve immunosuppression adherence. Perhaps most importantly, recipients had reservations about an app for adherence since they felt transplantation provided freedom and potential app monitoring would infringe on their independence. Instead, HCP and recipients stressed improvement in communication. Communication was valued over adherence. Participants envisioned use of a comprehensive platform for broader communication between themselves, pharmacies, and nontransplant clinicians while upholding security requirements and streamlining HCP workload. In this discussion, we address not only the creation of an app to improve immunosuppression adherence and communication but also how these findings add to literature in the field and inform future technological interventions.

While one of our goals was to explore app development to improve immunosuppression adherence, it is instructive to learn that recipients prefer freedom and control over their medication usage, rather than using the app to monitor medication adherence. However, this opinion may be driven by the fact that most recipients who agreed to participate in this study were motivated individuals with high self-management, and perhaps were already adherent to taking their medications. Furthermore, recipients suggested that use of the app for medication management in the early posttransplant period would be very useful during that stressful and tumultuous time, a finding corroborated by Nielsen et al with recipients who received a telehealth solution after a kidney transplant.³² Through this study, we learned from recipients that they did not want to be monitored; they wanted control.

Although technology may broadly assist patients in beneficial health behaviors,³³ patients’ input in design is critical for success.^34-36 For technologies to be effective, they must meet users’ needs, be easy to use, and be perceived as useful.^37-41 Involving end-users in the design of health technologies through “user-centered design,” improves future usability and quality, and the likelihood of adoption.^24,42 Both recipients and HCP end-users envisioned wider use of an app to improve communication pertaining to overall experiences within and outside of transplant care. Recipients saw the potential for greater access and control of their broader health information (including blood work), and improved communication with both their transplant and nontransplant HCP. However, there is inherent conflict here with HCP who expressed fears that greater access by recipients may increase their workload. Remarkably, patients were also concerned about HCP workload from the app, fearing it would decrease rather than increase communication with HCP. Yet it is important for HCP to know that recipients desire greater access, independence, and ownership; future research is needed to explore how such changes might impact HCP workloads. Healthcare providers prioritization of workload issues, charting, and need for clear articulation of scope, such as “who” would be responsible for data accuracy, address potential acceptability and use by HCP users.⁴³ While recipients did not highlight concerns about security, details about liability, privacy, and integration with the EMR would need to be clearly outlined to support communication, and ultimately future adoption. These concerns are consistent with findings by Nguyen et al¹⁰ in the TAKE-IT TOO study.

While our intention was to inform the development of a smartphone app, recipients and HCP imagined a comprehensive platform for broader communication perhaps resembling an inclusive portal accessible by patients, HCP, pharmacies, nontransplant HCP, and health insurers. Future research is needed to enact their recommendations. While patient portals exist and are under development internationally,⁴⁴ including in kidney transplant care,⁴⁵ we cannot conclude a portal would improve communication, a finding supported by Lockwood et al.⁴⁶ However, others have identified that improved communication and relationships between recipients and HCP lead to better immunosuppression adherence.⁴⁷ Similarly, Reese et al⁴⁸ found that electronic pill-bottle monitoring, along with text reminders to kidney transplant recipients and notifications to HCP, resulted in 88% immunosuppression adherence compared with 55% with monitoring alone. Future research is needed to explore use of patient portals with transplant recipients, HCP-recipient communication, and impact on work processes. Given the global technological explosion and the COVID-19 pandemic-driven psychosocial distress on patients, consideration of electronic interventions specifically to improve communication is both required and timely.^49,50 However, while this is an important area of further research, we acknowledge that there is a paucity of economic data to support broad implementation of mobile health interventions.^51,52 Looking ahead to future research, while this study was carried out with kidney transplant recipients and HCP, after the prototype app is developed, we intend to pilot it, undertake several rounds of usability testing, and then scale-up to all organ transplant groups within our transplant center.

This is the first study to undertake a user-centered design to explore recipients and HCP priorities and preferences to inform development of an app to improve immunosuppression adherence and communication. However, there are some limitations. The transferability of some of the themes to other transplant settings is uncertain, particularly low-income countries. Our findings are potentially limited by underrepresentation of physicians who may have identified different priorities or preferences, and recipients with racial/ethnic diversity (which was not collected). Despite efforts to seek broad opinions for the app design, we acknowledge selection bias of transplant recipients who perceived themselves to be adhering to immunosuppression medications. Furthermore, the cause of end-stage kidney disease reflected in our recipient sample is atypical with higher representation of glomerulonephritis. Given that recipients with glomerulonephritis tend to have less comorbidities, this selection bias may have further influenced the findings about app priorities and preferences. Inherent in studies aimed at improving adherence, the most challenging part is to engage those who struggle with adherence. Future research guided by integrated knowledge translation may purposefully engage in patient-oriented research with people who are at highest risk for nonadherence to tackle unanswered “thorny” questions in this field. However, as suggested by the recipient participants, an app may be most needed early in the transplant course or among younger generations, who we were able to consult through additional focus groups.

Conclusions

Before implementing technological solutions, it is imperative that such design is informed by and responsive to users’ perspectives. While we explored development of a smartphone app to improve immunosuppression adherence, we found this was not a priority to HCP. Healthcare provider-recipient communication to improve overall experience within transplant care was prioritized over immunosuppression adherence. Kidney transplant recipients favored choice, independence, and greater access to their health information over potential monitoring. Healthcare providers and recipients together imagined use of a comprehensive platform for broader communication between themselves, pharmacies, and nontransplant clinicians while upholding security requirements and streaming HCP workload.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjk-10.1177_20543581211072330 – Supplemental material for Designing an App for Immunosuppression Adherence and Communication: A Qualitative Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjk-10.1177_20543581211072330 for Designing an App for Immunosuppression Adherence and Communication: A Qualitative Approach by Kara Schick-Makaroff, Laura Lagendyk, Bethany Foster, Ngan N. Lam, Branko Braam, Aminu Bello, Soroush Shojai and Kevin Wen in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-cjk-10.1177_20543581211072330 – Supplemental material for Designing an App for Immunosuppression Adherence and Communication: A Qualitative Approach

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-cjk-10.1177_20543581211072330 for Designing an App for Immunosuppression Adherence and Communication: A Qualitative Approach by Kara Schick-Makaroff, Laura Lagendyk, Bethany Foster, Ngan N. Lam, Branko Braam, Aminu Bello, Soroush Shojai and Kevin Wen in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the recipients and healthcare team for participating in the focus groups. They would also like to thank Canadian Society of Transplantation for providing grant funding to support this study.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study was approved by the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board (Pro00082781) and Alberta Health Services.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication of data was approved by all participants. All coauthors reviewed and approved the final manuscript for publication.

Availability of Data and Materials

No additional data or materials are available for sharing. Please contact corresponding author with any inquiries.

Author Contributions

K.W. designed the study, collaborated with practice partners, and guided the manuscript. K.S.M. and L.L. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript, and K.S.M. revised the manuscript. B.F., N.L., B.B., and A.B. substantially contributed to the design of the study and provided critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CST-Astellas T3 grant.

ORCID iDs

Kara Schick-Makaroff

Ngan N. Lam

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

De Geest

Abraham

Moons

, et al. Late acute rejection and subclinical noncompliance with cyclosporine therapy in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1998;17(9):854-863.

Denhaerynck

Burkhalter

Schäfer-Keller

Steiger

Bock

De Geest

Clinical consequences of non adherence to immunosuppressive medication in kidney transplant patients. Transpl Int. 2009;22(4):441-446.

Pinsky

Takemoto

Lentine

Burroughs

Schnitzler

Salvalaggio

PR.

Transplant outcomes and economic costs associated with patient noncompliance to immunosuppression. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(11):2597-2606.

Sellarés

de Freitas

Mengel

, et al. Understanding the causes of kidney transplant failure: The dominant role of antibody-mediated rejection and nonadherence. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(2):388-399.

Dew

DiMartini

De Vito Dabbs

, et al. Rates and risk factors for nonadherence to the medical regimen after adult solid organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2007;83(7):858-873.

Sharma

Kroeker

, et al. Multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol of urine CXCL10 monitoring strategy in kidney transplant recipients. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e024908.

Maldonado

West-Thielke

Dew

, et al. Meeting report: Consensus recommendations for a research agenda to address immunosuppressant nonadherence in organ transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2018;32(9):e13362.

McGillicuddy

Gregoski

Weiland

, et al. Mobile health medication adherence and blood pressure control in renal transplant recipients: A proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. JMIR Research Protocols. 2013;2(2):e32.

Foster

Pai

ALH

Zelikovsky

, et al. A randomized trial of a multicomponent intervention to promote medication adherence: The teen adherence in kidney transplant effectiveness of intervention trial (TAKE-IT). American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2018;72(1):30-41.

10.

Nguyen

Dew

Irizarry

, et al. Promoting medication adherence from the perspective of adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients, parents, and 0 professionals: A TAKE-IT TOO study. Pediatr Transplant. 2020;24(5):e13709.

11.

Fleming

Taber

McElligott

McGillicuddy

Treiber

Mobile health in solid organ transplant: The time is now. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(9):2263-2276.

12.

Radovic

Badawy

SM.

Technology use for adolescent health and wellness. Pediatrics. 2020;145(suppl 2):S186-S194.

13.

Ramsey

Heidelberg

Gilbert

Heneghan

Badawy

Alberts

NM.

EHealth and mHealth interventions in pediatric cancer: A systematic review of interventions across the cancer continuum. Psychooncology. 2020;29(1):17-37.

14.

Badawy

Cronin

Hankins

, et al. Patient-centered eHealth interventions for children, adolescents, and adults with sickle cell disease: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(7):e10940.

15.

Payne

Lister

West

Bernhardt

JM.

Behavioral functionality of mobile apps in health interventions: A systematic review of the literature. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(1):e20.

16.

Zhao

Freeman

Can mobile phone apps influence people’s health behavior change? An evidence review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(11):e287.

17.

Badawy

Barrera

Sinno

Kaviany

O’Dwyer

Kuhns

LM.

Text messaging and mobile phone apps as interventions to improve adherence in adolescents with chronic health conditions: A systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(5):e66.

18.

Badawy

Kuhns

LM.

Texting and mobile phone app interventions for improving adherence to preventive behavior in adolescents: A systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(4):e50.

19.

Shah

Badawy

SM.

Telemedicine in pediatrics: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2021;4(1):e22696.

20.

Browning

McGillicuddy

Treiber

Taber

DJ.

Kidney transplant recipients’ attitudes about using mobile health technology for managing and monitoring medication therapy. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2016;56(4):450-454.

21.

Dayer

Shilling

Van Valkenburg

, et al. Assessing the medication adherence app marketplace from the health professional and consumer vantage points. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(4):e45.

22.

CKL

Karsh

B-T.

A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):550-560.

23.

De Vito Dabbs

Myers

Mc Curry

, et al. User-centered design and interactive health technologies for patients. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27(3):175-183.

24.

Jimison

Gorman

Woods

, et al. Barriers and drivers of health information technology use for the elderly, chronically ill, and underserved. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2008(175):1-1422.

25.

Sandelowski

Whatever happened to qualitative description. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-340.

26.

Braun

Clarke

Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.

27.

Pozzar

Stamp

Allen

NA.

Using focus groups to inform innovative approaches to care. Am J Nurs. 2013;113(8):48-53.

28.

Creswell

JW.

Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2012.

29.

Canadian Institute for Health Information. Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR). https://www.cihi.ca/en/canadian-organ-replacement-register-corr. Published 2020. Accessed July 13, 2020.

30.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907.

31.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357.

32.

Nielsen

Agerskov

Bistrup

Clemensen

Evaluation of a telehealth solution developed to improve follow-up after kidney transplantation. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(7-8):1053-1063.

33.

Murray

Burns

See Tai

Lai

Nazareth

. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005(4):CD004274.

34.

Straus

Tetroe

Graham

ID.

Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):6-10.

35.

Westmaas

Gil-Rivas

Silver

. Designing and Implementing Interventions to Promote Health and Prevent Illness. In: Friedman HS, Silver RC. (eds) Foundations of Health Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007:52-70.

36.

Pai

AL.

Health care provider-delivered adherence promotion interventions: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(6):e1698-e1707.

37.

Lazar

Feng

Hochheiser

Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. West Susex, UK: John Wiley Sons; 2010.

38.

Badawy

Thompson

Kuhns

LM.

Medication adherence and technology-based interventions for adolescents with chronic health conditions: A few key considerations. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(12):e202.

39.

Badawy

Thompson

Liem

RI.

Technology access and smartphone app preferences for medication adherence in adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(5):848-852.

40.

Perski

Blandford

West

Michie

Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: A systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(2):254-267.

41.

Perski

Blandford

Ubhi

West

Michie

Smokers’ and drinkers’ choice of smartphone applications and expectations of engagement: A think aloud and interview study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1): 1–14.

42.

Kushniruk

Nohr

Jensen

Borycki

EM.

From usability testing to clinical simulations: Bringing context into the design and evaluation of usable and safe health information technologies. Yearb Med Inform. 2013;8:78-85.

43.

Greenhalgh

Wherton

Papoutsi

, et al. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367.

44.

Kruse

Bolton

Freriks

The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44.

45.

Zmijewski

Decroce-Movson

Reinert

, et al. Online patient portal use and time to renal transplantation in patients on hemodialysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(6):983-988.

46.

Lockwood

Dunn-Lopez

Pauls

Burke

Shah

Saunders

MA.

If you build it, they may not come: Modifiable barriers to patient portal use among pre- and post-kidney transplant patients. JAMIA Open. 2018;1(2):255-264.

47.

Williams

Low

Manias

Crawford

The transplant team’s support of kidney transplant recipients to take their prescribed medications: A collective responsibility. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(15-16):2251-2261.

48.

Reese

Bloom

Trofe-Clark

, et al. Automated reminders and physician notification to promote immunosuppression adherence among kidney transplant recipients: A randomized trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3):400-409.

49.

Badawy

Radovic

Digital approaches to remote pediatric health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: Existing evidence and a call for further research. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(1):e20049.

50.

Serlachius

Badawy

Thabrew

Psychosocial challenges and opportunities for youth with chronic health conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(2):e23057.

51.

Badawy

Kuhns

LM.

Economic evaluation of text-messaging and smartphone-based interventions to improve medication adherence in adolescents with chronic health conditions: A systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(4):e121.

52.

Iribarren

Cato

Falzon

Stone

PW.

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170581.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB

0.04 MB